The carbon tax: history’s greatest monster

Without amendment or correction, John Baird’s warning that a carbon tax would kill your family is now preserved for eternity in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is making government more accountable, living within our means and focusing on the priorities which is what Canadians elected us to do. We are keeping taxes low. We are increasing funds to hospitals, health care and education. These are the priorities that Canadians have identified. Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something which the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept. It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government to no discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families.

Families in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Colorado, California, Maryland, South Africa, India, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland perhaps receive this warning too late.




Browse

The carbon tax: history’s greatest monster

  1. That wikipedia link is interesting. Most of the countries you list have altered or exempted over the course of their initial carbon tax. B.C. is re-thinking it’s carbon tax – basically frozen for the time being. California is nearly bankrupt.
    Finland: Since then, however, energy taxation has been changed many times and substantially. These changes were related to the opening of the Nordic electricity market. Other Nordic countries exempted energy-intensive industries, and Finnish industries felt disadvantaged by this. Finland did place a border tax on imported electricity, but this was found to be out of line with EU single market legislation. Changes were then made to the carbon tax to partially exclude energy-intensive firms. This had the effect of increasing the costs of reducing CO2 emissions
    New Zealand: The planned tax was scheduled to take effect from April 2007, and applied across most economic sectors though with an exemption for methane emissions from farming and provisions for special exemptions from carbon intensive businesses if they adopted world’s-best-practice standards of emissions.

    • “B.C. is re-thinking it’s carbon tax”

      Indeed. The party which initially opposed it and sit at 50% in the polls now support the tax along with the majority of British Columbians.

  2. Quebec’s carbon tax cannot be compared to the one that the Liberals and Dion envisioned.
    Dion’s CT was to discourage burning fossil fuels through higher prices/taxes.
    Charest made it clear that his carbon tax could not be passed onto consumers, so that consumers wouldn’t feel it at the pump (and therefore would not affect their consumption patterns).
    Not all carbon taxes are created equal. It’s unfair to equate the CTs in the jurisdictions that Wherry has listed.

    • There’s no such thing as a tax which isn’t passed on to the consumer.

      • Of course, but Charest wants us to believe otherwise.

  3. the carbon tax is best mechanism available – if one accepts that commoditization of carbon is required.

    the Cons have set up so many ego traps for themselves that even if they changed their mind on policy (kinda like the conversion of the Libranos to supporting NAFTA), cognitive dissonance would break the party apart.

    isn’t that what’s at the bottom of politics though? walking egos collecting government cheques….

  4. I would be okay with a carbon tax as long as it doesn’t increase the cost of living for the average Canadian. There are opportunities that come with a carbon tax that you rarely see with most taxes. If you can manage to lower your fuel consumption in some way, you would be lowering your taxes. I would take that as a challenge and see how far I could go with it.

    • Even if it didn’t raise the cost of living in any way, it would still be opposed on the ground that it’s making seniors freeze in the dark and render them unable to make dinner. Regardless of whether or not it actually is.

  5. It wouldn’t just kill our families, it would hurt them too.

Sign in to comment.